Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UX Myths (2014)

uxmyths.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#71

Post by TeMPOraL »

HillRat wrote: post #66
TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Designers have to create a vision that matches the discovered desires of the users, and then ruthlessly road-test that vision through prototyping and structured user testing. I think this approach is actually part of the problem of the UX today. It ignores the fact that most of the time, users have no "desires" about the product, and that instead what user does and wants is directly shaped by their interaction with…

My belief is you should focus on understanding the problems your target users want to solve with your tool, and then design UX around making the product a powerful and convenient tool for solving those problems. I agree! And, when I talk about "design," UI and UX are only one facet (because strategy, content, and technology are their own components in the larger design space). When I talk about "desire," I'm followin…

Thanks for the response. I haven't heard of Gause and Weinberg's book before, looks interesting. I'll take a look.

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#73

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

kristopolous wrote: post #41
HillRat wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen designers coddled and defended against avalanches of negative feedback under dubious auspices that users don't know what they want or that it's a natural thing to complain... Then those aren't designers, those are artists . Artists have the option of creating a singular vision and defending it against all comers. Designers have to create a vision that matches the discovered desires of the users, and then ru…

I'm not a big fan of assigning identities to others. I've got disagreements on the culture. If we didn't have this current culture and the older style continued, this mobile phone would have a physical slide out keyboard. There may have been a physical scroll wheel on the side of the phone that could go through programs, scroll this page And do volume - not just that. Maybe even buttons on the back of the phone like…

everything to be a toddlers interface in 10 years that's enormously infuriating and useless

No need to wait 10 years, you've just described what we have now. Sure, it'll be worse in 10 years, but what we have now is already so simple that toddlers do use smartphones.

What's infuriating is that there is no pro- or power-user version. I'd pay AU$1200 for the device you described above but not for a flagship smartphone from Gooapple.

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#74

Post by unexistance »

hollerith wrote: post #65
unexistance wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if it helps, I've been able to differentiate both type of links using plain Firefox The trick is to always override the color options in Firefox settings p/s: I'm starting to follow people in HN through this way too, and keeping up with my weekly reading materials (xkcd, manga, etc) But I took it one step above by disabling colors altogether & sees the web as (mostly) wall of light text on dark background

Some sites are unusable what that setting. For example, it makes the voting arrows on HN invisible. And it makes the chess boards on lichess.org invisible. Is there a way to opt in to the site's color choices per domain?

yeah, some sites will 'break', but not a problem to me so far...

I suspect it can be done via Firefox's userchrome.css file, but I never dabble in it

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#75

Post by msimpson »

"Myth #18: Flash used to be evil...A Flash site can meet virtually all web accessibility criteria" --UX Myths

"The majority of Flash content cannot be made natively accessible to screen readers. At this time, only modern versions of the JAWS and Window-Eyes screen readers that are using the Flash 6+ player within Internet Explorer on Windows can provide even marginal access to Flash content." --WebAIM

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#76

Post by ronjouch »

unexistance wrote: post #74
hollerith wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some sites are unusable what that setting. For example, it makes the voting arrows on HN invisible. And it makes the chess boards on lichess.org invisible. Is there a way to opt in to the site's color choices per domain?

yeah, some sites will 'break', but not a problem to me so far... I suspect it can be done via Firefox's userchrome.css file, but I never dabble in it

It's userContent.css ; userChrome.css is used to style the browser itself (the "chrome" of the browser, that is to say what is around the content: location bar, menus, etc. Yes the collision with this other Google browser is confusing these days, but Firefox/IE usage of the term predates Google Chrome, it's actually Google Chrome that hogged the term, not the other way).

But be careful, Electrolysis (multi-process firefox) broke userContent.css, if you are running it you'll have to either disable Electrolysis, or use Stylish. Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046166

I like userContent.css, it's a single css file, easy to understand/sync. Hope a fix will arrive someday.

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#77

Post by Nemi »

kristopolous wrote: post #4

I'll take serious issue with #12. There's undirected scatterbrained interfaces and that's bad sure. But there's the other extreme. Like in Google mobile search, you can't do custom date ranges... they've removed one menu item just on mobile. On SoundCloud mobile you can't delete your own uploads. On reddit mobile you can only do text posts. Or that new version of gas buddy or Google maps or in Google photos on mobile…

I agree with you 100%, but I think you are conflating two different things. What number 12 talks about is having too many choices for one thing. E.g.,

* Too many themes

* Which of these 10 apps would you like to open the text file with?

* New Word document, what kind of document (lists 40 choices)

What you are really talking about is #34. Designers trying to make it simpler for mobile end up reducing functionality.

Re: UX Myths (2014)

#78

Post by kristopolous »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #73
kristopolous wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a big fan of assigning identities to others. I've got disagreements on the culture. If we didn't have this current culture and the older style continued, this mobile phone would have a physical slide out keyboard. There may have been a physical scroll wheel on the side of the phone that could go through programs, scroll this page And do volume - not just that. Maybe even buttons on the back of the phone like…

everything to be a toddlers interface in 10 years that's enormously infuriating and useless No need to wait 10 years, you've just described what we have now . Sure, it'll be worse in 10 years, but what we have now is already so simple that toddlers do use smartphones. What's infuriating is that there is no pro- or power-user version. I'd pay AU$1200 for the device you described above but not for a flagship smartphone…

don't know if you'll see this ... but I think that part of the reason that we don't have this is because nobody has made it "sexy" enough.

I think we've conflated user desires in things like the iphone as the clever marketing from Apple Inc. I think the effect of their marketing really eclipsed the quality and features of their product line and we've drawn a false equivalency that the methodology of their product line is what consumers actually want.

I have no empirical evidence to support this wacky theory however and I remiss that it's likely 80% wishful thinking.

Post reply on HN